1. They're charging7% interest on the loan they kindly gave the club.2. They mortgage the season ticket sales to fund the club.3. Karen Brady works 10 hours a week4. Sullivan deliberately emails other clubs with low offers then leaks the information to " sources" to try and unsettle the player into leaving. 5. Marko and Manuel will both be sold this summer6. There's a high risk of administration

Well I see the PR machine has started to warm us to the idea that WH have actually made a profit in the "tens of thousands" according to Claret & High. (I made a typo there but as I hear old Hugh is often pissed thought it was apt!)

This is what politicians do these days as well. When bad news is about to break they brief journalists little gossip about how bad a report is and then when it turns out to be not so bad everyone does that "Oh well I thought it would be worse..." dance!

So I will wait and see what they report. Apart from the first team needing strengthening they need several really profitable years to catch up with their cash flow needs. As Mike Ashley said yesterday "I've put £250m into Newcastle and I'm not putting in any more..."

I don't know but I'll wager it wasn't put in as loans. And our directors only loaned WH £50m...

That means they invested £200m less than Mike Ashley who is one of the woprst owners according to Geordie fans...

if the club were in a healthy financial position why would it need to keep taking out these high interest 'payday loans', or sell off the training ground so it can then pay through the nose to keep using it.

Some of what has been said certainly seems like made up bullshit, but there is definitely something very fishy about the way the owners go about financial matters.

From owning our own stadium and training ground we now own absolutely fuck all. Apart from the players that is, and the way some are playing at the moment most of them have a rapidly diminishing value.

The cashflow thing is interesting as it seems to have been an issue for quite some time.

I say "seems", because even before the three Muppeteers turned up, the club were acting in a very similar manner to companies I knew had serious cash flows and a few "too big to die"s (in the telecom sector) did indeed die (BT was perilously close at one time, too). They were all worth a fortune on paper but lacked the liquidity for day-to-day running.

I suspect as far back as Brown's day's, they'd mortgaged Rio's future (value) and many, if not all, of the other youngsters of that period, meaning it was only a matter of time before payback came due. It may well have been an open secret within the game - one that the press simply avoided for some reason.

It might help explain why, for instance, both Rio (& Carrick)'s value shot up so quickly after leaving us - they were sold to pay for the own-brand mayonnaise in the club canteen.

We have180 million outstanding people and we don't own our ground. Administration is a massive risk if we go down. Everything is mortgaged to the hilt. Future season ticket sales are mortgaged to Michael Tabor. Anyone thinking we can go down without financial Armageddon is dangerously naive.

To explain my interpretation of those accounts better. West Ham need a cash injection of £100m really. Even £50m would make a difference but they club is run on a shoestring because it has too many debts imho.

Obviously as long as they don't let wages get too high the increases in TV revenue, merchandising and extra ticket sales will make profits only if WH does not spend too much on buying players.

In other words WH needs to make profits every year to trade its way to pay off all its debts. Most company directors make the company solvent by injecting capital into the company in the first place...

I just posted this below on the other Save our club thread but seems relevant here too...

There is little doubt that WH are badly run. I've just taken a look at the accounts for the year to end of May 2016. I'm not an accountant btw. I just kearned from employing accountants for donkey's years.

If anyone has a copy off the official accounts which are available on the link below, turn to page 39. There you will see the extent of "creditors" which are people or companies that are owed money. Those creditors were owed £180m at May 2016 payable within 12 months and £20m repayable after 12 months.

That doesn't actually mean the club is £200m in debt as you would offset that with assets and debtors (shares in the company, what capital items were bought and what was owed to WH.) Doing that left the company with minus £52m!

However, any accountants out there might explain it better but at May 2016 WHUFC was insolvent to the tune of minus £52m.

No business would give West Ham credit terms. As a football club they get away with it. They are so short of cash they actually need short term loans to keep afloat.

That's why we took what we could get for Sakho and Ayew. I hope the 2017 accounts due out now, are better but I doubt it although I am sure things are getting better due to increased income from ticket sales, merchandising and TV.

Can ony see they will go is if they buy the stadium for a pound when its offered. Then attract a buyer, who that may be. Could be anyone.They certainly bought the club not in the best interests of the club, but for themselves.Now while there could be a long wait before all the above happens, they will milk the club and the fans for all they can.While they are disappointed not to have found a buyer so far and are stuck with club, and we with them, they are happy with the income they are receiving

Not saying I disagree with any points made but how are you really going to get rid of them. They are thick skinned, have all the power. They won't just sell because they are unpopular.You can't 'sack the board' How's You going to do that?

I’d love to know how you know that? The last set of published accounts don’t say anything like that. Our biggest creditors were shareholders which doesn’t suggest a likelihood for administration. Particularly as our revenues, be they tv revenue or parachute payment would clear our external (non-shareholder) debt.

They might be cunts but it absolutely isn’t in their interest for us to be anything but commercially successful as they would take a massive personal hit.

If we go down, we face administration. There's a reason why they've been shifting players and backfilling with loans. It's the project all over again. They deliberately unsettle players in the hope they will move and the selling club caves into their demands.